ffliprai'fS  MUMS  i'j^' •:•' '^' 1-  i'Hs-u^ 


■  ^^^K  ;>.',_*; 


^.lo.'olj 


"^ 


•ArtS.*^ 


»« 


^jt  Wt  ®fo«>%tai  ^ 


%; 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


**« 


S^ 


C^ 


Presented    bT^ro-  ~ST;5).\J\jCAA\<2^Va  ."I^-Ti. 


Division 

Section 


INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.  A.  BRIGGS, 

AT  UNIOxN  SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK. 


By  FRANCIS  R.  BEATTIE,  D.  D. 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DE.  C.  A.  BRIGGS  AT  UNION 
SEMINARY,  NEW  YORK. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  coimtry  is  making  history  rapidly. 
In  aggressive  work  at  home  and  in  extensive  efforts  abroad,  the  differ- 
ent members  of  the  Presbyterian  family  are  purchasing  for  themselves 
a  good  report  at  the  present  day.  Our  brethren  of  the  great  Northern 
bi'auch  of  Presbyterianism,  however,  are  just  now  engaged  in  what  will 
doubtless  make  some  important  history  in  the  near  future.  They  have 
entered,  in  a  carefull}-  guarded  way,  upon  the  revision  of  the  historic 
doctrinal  symbols  of  Presbyterianism,  and  a  lax'ge  and  representative 
committee  is  now  preparing  a  report  for  the  next  General  Assembly, 
which  meets  in  Detroit  in  May. 

The  echoes  of  the  revision  discussion  of  a  year  ago  had  scarcely  died 
away  when  an  event  occured  which  can  hardly  fail  to  have  great  signifi- 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C,  A.  BRIGG8.  271 

cance.  That  event  is  the  inauguration  of  Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs  as 
professor  of  Biblical  Theolog-y  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New- 
York,  and  the  delivery  of  an  address  by  him  on  that  occasion.  Mr. 
Charles  Butler,  president  of  the  Seminary  Board,  gave  $100,000  to  found 
and  endow  this  chair ;  and  in  connection  therewith  he  nominated  Dr. 
Briggs  as  its  first  incumbent.  The  Board  confirmed  the  nomination, 
Dr.  Briggs  accepted  the  post,  and  was  transferred  from  the  Hebi'ew 
chaii-  to  that  of  Biblical  Theology.  He  entered  upon  his  duties  at  once, 
and  on  the  20th  of  January,  1891,  was  solemnly  and  fonnally  installed, 
in  the  presence  of  a  large  and  distinguished  assembly  gathered  in  the 
Seminary  Chapel.  After  the  opening  exercises  Dr.  Briggs  accepted 
the  doctrines  and  polity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  following 
terms : 

"I  believe  the  Sciptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word 
of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  I  do  now,  in 
the  presence  of  God  and  the  Directors  of  this  Seminar}',  solemnly  and 
sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as 
containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do 
also,  in  like  manner,  approve  of  the  Presbyterian  Fonn  of  Government, 
and  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  I  will  not  teach  or  inculcate  anything 
which  shall  appear  to  me  to  be  subversive  of  the  said  system  of  doc- 
trine, or  of  the  principles  of  said  Form  of  Government,  so  long  as  I 
shall  continue  to  be  a  professor  in  the  Seminar^'."     (Italics  mine.) 

The  newly  inducted  professor  was  then  addressed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Frazer 
of  Newark,  N.  J.,  who  was  a  classmate  of  Dr.  Briggs,  in  the  class  of 
1864,  in  Union  Seminary. 

Then  followed  the  inaugiu-al  address,  which,  we  are  told,  occupied  more 
than  an  hour-  and  a  half,  and  was  delivered  with  great  freedom,  fervor, 
eloquence  and  power.  An  authorized  syllabus  of  the  address  has  been 
pubhshed  in  several  papers,  and  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  most 
of  our  readers  have  already  seen  it.  It  is  not  necessarv-,  therefore,  to 
copy  it  in  extenso  in  this  note,  which  can  only  be  a  mere  sketch  at 
best. 

The  publication  of  an  authorized  syllabus  of  the  addi'ess  rendere  it 
a  reUable  and  legitimate  subject  of  discussion.  The  religious  and  other 
journals  of  the  North  have  been  discussing  its  merits  veiy  freely,  and 
the  Soutliern  branch  of  the  Presbyt«'rian  Church  has  naturally  a  deep 
interest  in  the  great  movements  which  afiect  the  church  at  the  North. 
That  interest,  moreover,  will  assuredly  be  of  the  kindest  and  most 
fraternal  nature.     Whilst  we  must  diller  most  decideiUy  with  the  posi- 


272  THE  PRESBYERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

tions  taken  by  Dr.  Briggs,  aud  cannot  but  deplore  the  signs  of  radical- 
drifting  from  the  historic  moorings  of  Presbj'terianism  which  his  ad- 
di'ess  indicates,  we  would  still  cherish  the  hope  that  in  due  time  it  wiU 
be  made  evident  that  the  following  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  in  his  own 
church  is  very  small. 

The  subject  of  the  address  is,  "  The  Authority  of  the  Scriptures," 
but  the  discussion  leads  over  a  wide  field,  and  the  friendly  aud  un- 
friendly critics  seem  to  differ  greatly  as  to  the  aim  and  scope  of  the 
address.  Before  we  let  the  address  in  a  measure  speak  for  itself,  some 
gleanings  from  Northern  exchanges  may  be  of  interest  to  our  readers, 
as  showing  the  trend  of  opinion  regarding  it  near  the  scene  of  its  de- 
Hvery.  The  New  York  Evangelist,  which  has  always  been  a  strong 
advocate  of  revision  and  a  warm  supporter  of  Dr.  Briggs,  has  an  article 
which  seems  to  combine  the  laudatory  and  apologetic  elements  in  about 
equal  proportions.  It  says:  "No  abstract  can  do  any  justice  to  its 
learning,  comprehensiveness,  eloquence,  and  spirituality,"  and  then  it 
goes  on  to  explain  and  interpret  the  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  such 
statements  as  these :  "  The  main  purpose  of  the  address  was  to  show 
that  Biblical  theology  proves  the  authority  of  Scripture."  .  .  .  "The 
point  was  emphasized  that  the  authority'  of  Scripture  is  the  authority 
of  God,  not  of  man ;  that  bai'riers  which  prevent  men  from  feeling  this 
divine  authority  are  of  human  rearing  and  need  to  be  removed."  .  .  . 
"The  way  was  prepared  for  this  main  discussion  by  a  consideration  of 
the  different  avenues  by  which  divine  authority  has  actiially,  in  human 
history,  come  to  men,  the  church  and  reason  having  as  a  matter  of  fact 
shared  this  service  with  the  Bible."  Then  the  apologetic  tone  comes 
out  more  clearly,  thus:  "If  any  one  should  suppose  that  Dr.  Briggs 
meant  to  imply  that  the  Church  and  Heason  were  of  equal  rank  with  the 
Bible  as  channels  of  divine  authority,  the  entire  address,  with  its  un- 
reseiTed  exaltation  of  the  Scriptures,  would  be  the  only  needed  an- 
swer." After  several  similar  statements  are  made  the  comforting 
assurance  is  given,  that  "  Some  minds  wiU  probably  be  relieved  by  the 
distinct  statement — needless  to  those  who  know  Dr.  Briggs  best — that 
he  does  not  find  a  second  probation  in  the  Bible,  and  may  be  led  to 
consider  without  prejudice  whether  in  his  (Dr.  Briggs')  behef  in  a  pro- 
gressive sanctification  after  death  there  is  not  a  helpful  truth." 

The  New  York  Observer  at  the  date  of  this  writing  has  simply 
given  an  account  of  the  inauguration  ceremony  aud  a  careful  outline 
of  the  address.  This  vigorous  journal  will  no  doubt  have  said  some- 
thing clear  and  strong  before  this  falls  under  the  reader's  eye.     The 


THE  INUAGURATION  OF  DK.  C.    A.    I5RIGG8.  273 

Herald  and  Presht/ter  iu  its  article  does  uot  take  very  strong  gi'ound 
for  or  against  the  address.  Such  statements  as  the  following  arrest 
the  reader's  eye:  "The  inaugural  address  brings  out  in  bold  rehef  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  author."  .  .  "He  announces  no  new  views."  .  . 
"Public  opinion  will  now  be  more  definite  and  accurate.  "NVe  may  ex- 
pect that  those  who  are  dissatisfied  will  be  more  demonstrative  than 
ever."  .  .  .  "Dr.  Briggs  is  a  leader  in  our  church  of  a  movement  that 
is  wide-spread  in  the  religious  world."  At  the  close  of  the  article  the 
bearing  of  all  this  on  the  revision  movement  is  alluded  to  iu  the  foilowing 
tenns:  ""We  are  as  much  afraid  of  too  much  revision  as  of  too  little. 
We  want  nothing  that  impairs  the  system  of  doctrine.  Those  who 
sympathize  with  Dr.  Briggs'  peculiar  views  we  feel  sure  will  find  no 
comfort  iu  the  report  of  the  Eevision  Committee,  and  none  in  the  action 
of  the  General  Assembly  upon  it."  The  Christian  Intelligencer,  of  New 
York,  under  the  caption  of  Dr.  Briggs'  Vagaries,  notes  eleven  points, 
makes  some  pertinent  comments,  and  concludes  its  short  article  thus: 
"His  address  will  gladden  erroristsof  all  sorts,  and  give  a  painful  pang 
to  many  devout  hearts.  It  will  put  upon  the  Theological  Seminaiy  which 
has  honored  him  a  very  heavy  burden."  The  New  York  Independent, 
in  an  able  and  temperate  article,  makes  the  following  severe  state- 
ment concerning  the  address  in  general,  after  alluding  to  various  im- 
ix)rtant  particulars:  "The  general  type  and  drift  of  this  address, 
taken  as  a  whole,  seems  to  us  as  calculated  to  shed  more  darkness  than 
light,  and  to  raise  more  difiiculties  than  it  removes,  and  is  better 
adapted  to  suggest  doubts  than  it  is  to  estabhsh  and  coutu'm  faith; 
and,  hence,  to  deepen  rather  than  to  clear  up  the  fog  on  the  subject  of 
rehgion."  As  might  be  expected.  The  J*re$hi/terian  has  a  strong  arti- 
cle, in  which  the  views  set  forth  iu  the  address  are  vigorously  assailed. 
This  article  also  ix)ints  out  the  inconsistency  of  accepting,  as  Dr. 
Briggs  does,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  then  annoimcing  such  views 
as  are  set  forth  iu  the  address.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  paragraph 
on  this  point  it  is  stated  that  "it  is  not  given  to  many  men,  as  we  be- 
lieve, to  plunge  into  inconsistencies  with  such  a  fatal  facility."  The 
tone  of  the  whole  ai-ticlo  may  be  gathered  very  well  fn)m  this  state- 
ment: "What  a  sorrowful  thing  it  is  to  see  a  man  of  so  much  learning, 
of  so  much  real  attractiveness,  so  finely  qualified  for  opening  up  to 
young  men  the  great  historical  revelations  of  God,  made  through  the 
ages  by  inspired  men,  advance  t«j  his  new  position  in  the  church  with 
such  words  of  contempt  for  his  companions  in  ministerial  and  church 
life,  and  of  exulting  applause  for  their  foes  on  his  lips !     It  is  simply 


274  THE  PEESBYTERIAN  QUAETERLY. 

a  matter  for  unfeigned  lamentation."  Other  expressions  of  opinion 
from  the  East  might  be  given,  but  space  forbids,  and  at  this  date 
(February  10th)  we  have  not  been  able  to  get  our  hands  on  an  ex- 
pression of  opinion  from  the  breezy  West,  or  from  the  genial  Pacific 
coast.  ^Tiat  has  been  gleaned,  however,  will  present  a  general  view 
of  the  opinions  formed  of  the  address  soon  after  it  was  given  to  the 
public  in  its  authorized  syllabus. 

But  it  is  high  time  that  we  had  passed  on  to  deal  with  the  address 
for  ourselves.  No  elaborate  review  of  it  can  be  made  in  the  limits  of 
this  note,  much  as  we  feel  inclined  to  enlarge. 

As  ah'eady  stated,  the  subject  of  the  address  is  "  The  authority  of 
the  Scrij)tures."  This  theme  is  discvissed  in  a  broad  way  under  four 
heads:  I.  The  sources  of  authority  in  religion.  II.  Barriers  to  the  Bible. 
m.  The  Theology  of  the  Bible.  TV.  The  harmony  of  the  soui'ces  of 
authority.  The  tii'st  is  discussed  vmder  three  particulars,  the  second 
under  six,  the  third  under  eight,  and  the  fourth  in  a  general  way. 
Before  saying  a  few  things  regarding  some  of  the  views  announced  in 
the  address,  two  obvious  remarks  may  be  made  concerning  its  general 
spirit  and  tone. 

In  the  first  place,  there  are  certain  criticisms  made  at  the  expense  of 
the  reverent  regard  which  many  people  have  for  the  Scriptures  that 
seem  to  us  to  border  on  the  profane.  We  are  assured  by  our  report 
that  the  address  throughout  "  breathed  a  spirit  not  merely  of  theo- 
logical earnestness,  but  also  of  high  religious  fervor."  Then  another 
report  tells  us  that  Dr.  Briggs  gave  utterance  to  the  following:  "  The 
Bible  is  no  better  than  a  mass-book  for  stopping  a  bullet :  and  is  not 
as  good  as  holy  water  for  putting  out  a  fii'e."  This  may  have  been  in- 
tended as  a  bit  of  pleasantry  by  Dr.  Briggs  to  relieve  the  fatigue  of  a 
long  address,  in  which  it  must  have  often  been  difiicult  for  the  hearer 
to  be  siu'e  of  the  meaning  of  the  sjDeaker ;  still  our  deep  rooted  convic- 
tion is  that  such  pleasantry  must  outrage  the  feelings  of  reverence  for 
the  word  of  God,  which  have  a  place  in  the  earnest  Christian  heai't. 
If  a  man  has  not  fertility  enough  to  make  a  joke  to  rest  an  audience 
without  alluding  in  this  way  to  the  Scriptures,  it  is  surely  better  to 
have  no  jokes  at  all.  Wit  is  proper  enough  in  its  place,  and  there 
may  be  no  sin  in  a  hearty  laugh,  but  only  harm  can  come  from  levity 
or  irreverence  concerning  sacred  things  of  any  kind. 

The  other  general  remark  relates  to  the  depreciatory  tone  in  which 
the  Scriptures  and  our  reverent  I'egard  for  them  are  repeatedly  spoken 
of.     This  produced  a  painful  impression  on  our  mind  the  first  time 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.  A.  BRIGG8.  275 

the  syllabus  was  perused,  and  repeated  perusal  of  the  statements  made 
has  not  removed  in  the  least  degree  that  impression.  "We  are  told  that 
''  the  Bible  has  been  treated  as  if  it  were  a  baby,  to  be  wi-apped  in 
swaddhng  clothes,  nursed  and  carefully  guarded,  lest  it  should  be  in- 
jured by  heretics  and  infidels."  The  insinuation  is  made  that  Protes- 
tant theologians,  even,  are  guilty  of  this  abuse  of  the  Bible.  What 
must  be  the  effect  of  such  an  expression  on  a  man  who  already  has 
httle  regard  for  the  Scriptures  ?  Then  the  high  regard  in  which  the 
Bible  is  held  in  the  Christian  church  is  called  "  Bibliolatry  like  imto 
Roman  Catholic  Mariolatry  and  Hagiolatry."  How  far  will  such  a  re- 
mark go  to  increase  reverence  for  the  Bible  among  Protestants?  It  is 
boldy  stated  that  "  there  are  errors  in  the  Bible  which  no  one  has  been 
able  to  explain  away."  How  much  will  this  fortify  the  average  man 
in  his  confidence  in  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God  ?  Again,  we  are  in- 
formed that  "the  ethical  conduct  of  the  holy  men  of  the  Bible  was  such 
that  we  would  not  receive  them  into  our  families,  if  thev  lived  amoncr 
us  and  did  such  things  now  as  they  did  then."  This  sounds  very  like 
some  utterances  ■with  which  the  perusal  of  infidel  Hteratui'e  has  made 
us  famihar. 

It  may  be  that  we  are  worshipping  in  great  ignorance  at  the  shrine 
which  Protestant  bibliolatr}'  has  set  tap,  seeing  that  we  have  not  yet 
imbibed  the  results  of  advanced  critical  scholarship,  although  we  have 
stood  by  the  stream  and  watched  it  flow  past  carrying  a  great  deal  of 
rubbish  in  its  ciu'reut,  but  we  will  continue  to  worship  at  the  shrine 
of  God's  holy  word  all  our  days,  and  hoi^e  to  die  still  a  reverent  bib- 
liolater. It  may  also  be  that  we  are  lacking  that  faith  which  enables 
us  to  believe  even  where  there  are  errors  which  cannot  be  explained 
away,  but  we  may  still  be  allowed  to  believe  that  there  were  no  erroi*s 
in  the  autographs  of  the  Bible  since  there  is  only  hj-pothesis  against 
it.  We  ai*e  also  quite  willing  to  admit  that  we  have  by  no  means  at- 
tained to  that  degree  of  ethical  culture  which  enables  us  to  criticize 
the  ethical  precepts  set  forth  in  any  part  of  the  Scrii^tiu'es,  and  yet  we 
must  confess  that  the  tone  of  the  address  upon  this  point  produced  a 
painful  impression.  W^e  would  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  some 
complimentary  words  have  come  to  the  eai-s  of  Dr.  Briggs  from  quai'- 
ters  that  are  not  at  all  well  disposed  towai'ds  the  ethics  of  the  Bible. 

A  few  sahent  points  in  the  address  are  now  selected  for  brief  con- 
sideration: 

The  first  that  meets  us  is  the  question  of  authority  in  mattere  of 
religion.     Dr.  Briggs  tells  us  very  truly  that  divine  authority  is  the 


276  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

only  authority  to  "svliich  man  can  yield  implicit  obedience;  then  he 
goes  on  to  say  (and  it  sounds  strange  to  Protestant  ears)  that  there 
are  three  fountains  of  divine  authority :  1.  The  Bible.  2.  The  Church. 
3.  The  Reason.  He  says  that  "the  great  majority  of  Christians  since 
the  Apostles'  days  have  found  God  through  the  chui-ch  or  institutional 
Christianity."  He  also  states  that  "God  makes  himself  known  by  the 
forms  of  reason,  the  metaphysical  categories,  the  conscience,  and  the 
religious  feelings,"  and  that  "  he  cannot  deny  the  rationalists  a  place 
in  the  companj^  of  the  faithful."  He  then  sums  up  by  adding  that 
"men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  their  environments 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue." 

In  all  this,  and  much  more  of  a  like  nature  in  the  syllabus,  there 
is  so  much  ambiguity  of  expression  and  confusion  of  thought,  that  it 
is  by  no  means  eas}'  to  tell  what  Dr.  Briggs  means,  and  so  be  in  a  po- 
sition to  offer  satisfactory  criticism. 

In  the  first  place.  Dr.  Briggs  by  no  means  makes  it  clear  whether 
he  regards  the  Bible,  the  church  and  the  reason  as  of  coordinate  au- 
thority in  rehgion.  The  syllabus  does  not  inform  us  on  this  point,  for 
it  seems  almost  studiously  to  avoid  saying  what  a  single  sentence 
w^ould  have  made  plain.  The  Evangelist,  which  seems  to  know  the 
secrets  of  Dr.  Briggs,  interprets  his  position  to  be  that  "  he  gives  the 
Bible  the  first  place."  But  it  does  seem  strange  that  such  a  master  of 
expression  as  Dr.  Briggs  has  shown  himself  to  be  in  other  writings 
should  leave  his  meaning  so  obscure  upon  a  cardinal  point  like  this. 
"Why  is  the  reader  so  puzzled  to  get  at  the  real  opinion  of  Dr.  Briggs 
in  this  case?  His  minimizing  of  the  Bible  and  his  exaltation  of  reason 
look  suspicious,  and  what  is  said  towards  the  close  of  the  address  does 
not  remove  the  tmcertainty.  He  there  speaks  of  the  church  and  reason 
as  "the  other  seats  of  divine  authority."  "The  Bible  needs  the  church 
and  the  reason  ere  it  can  exert  its  full  power  upon  the  life  of  men." 
And  growing  eloquent,  he  adds :  "  I  rejoice  at  the  age  of  rationalism, 
with  all  its  wonderful  achievements  in  philosophy.  I  look  upon  it  as 
preparing  men  to  use  reason  in  the  last  great  age  of  the  world."  Such 
statements  as  these,  taken  together,  force  us  to  the  conclusion  that  Dr. 
Briggs  coordinates  the  authority  of  the  chiu'ch  and  reason  with  that 
of  the  Bible,  if  he  does  not  regard  them  as  equal  sources  of  authority 
in  matters  of  faith  and  life.  If  this  be  so,  then  there  is  departure 
from  the  historic  faith  of  Protestantism,  and  from  the  Confessional 
doctrine  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  hfe 
having  divine  authority. 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.   A.    BIGGS.  277 

In  the  second  place,  the  news  of  Dr.  Brij^'-gs  on  this  question  lead 
to  endless  confusion  and  are  not  without  real  danger.  If  the  church 
be  a  source  of  authority,  we  at  once  ask  what  church,  what  branch  of 
the  church,  are  we  to  look  to?  Is  it  to  the  Protestant,  or  the  Koniish? 
Then,  if  to  the  Protestant  Church,  which  one  of  its  many  branches  ai*e 
■we  to  hear  and  obey  ?  How  can  an  eai*nest  honest  seeker  after  God  find 
assured  certainty  by  this  means?  Must  we  all  wait  till  "the  church 
of  the  futiu-e,"  of  which  Dr.  Briggs  writes  so  finely  in  Whither,  has 
been  formed  ?  In  like  manner,  if  reason  be  made  a  source  of  authority 
the  same  perplexity  arises.  "Whose  reason,  or  what  reason,  is  to  be 
taken  as  the  authority  ?  Is  it  tlie  natural  reason  and  conscience,  or  is 
it  the  reason  of  a  man  under  the  renewing  grace  of  God?  How  on  this 
theory  can  an  earnest  seeker  find  certainty,  unless  he  goes  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  rests  not  on  reason  as  tinal?  Dr.  Briggs  is  historian  and 
theologian  enough  to  know  that  we  have  here  the  essential  princi- 
ples of  Romanism  and  Rationalism  respectively  brought  before  us,  if 
not  accejited,  in  the  views  he  presents.  And,  further,  it  is  evident  that 
if  these  three  sources  of  authority  should  not  agree,  and  they  might 
often  differ,  there  is  no  final  source  of  appeal,  and  the  confusion  is 
complete.  Unless  the  Scriptures,  as  the  word  of  God,  are  taken  to 
be  the  one  source  of  absolute  authority,  we  have  no  escape  from  the 
Romish  doctrine  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  Rationalistic  on  the  other. 
So  far  as  we  can  see,  the  address  of  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  build  a  broad- 
gauge,  down-grade  road  which  logically  leads  to  one  or  the  other 
of  these  destinations.  Is  Presbyterianism  prepared  to  leave  the  safe 
and  narrow  way  which  gives  both  the  church  and  reason  their  proj^er 
places  in  matters  of  religion,  but  sets  the  Bible  in  the  seat  of  undivided 
authority  I 

In  the  third  place,  Dr.  Briggs  confounds  the  question  of  the  source 
or  seat  of  authoritv  with  two  other  questions.  Sometimes  it  is  con- 
founded with  the  (juestion  of  the  grounds  or  evidences  that  the  Bible 
unfolds  a  divine  revelation,  and  at  other  times  with  the  question  of  the 
channels  by  which  God  makes  himself  known  to  men.  Nearly  all  that 
the  syllabus  contains  under  the  section  on  "Barriers  to  the  Bible,' 
pertains  to  the  question  of  the  evidences  or  proofs  that  the  Bible  is  a 
supernatural  revelation,  and  does  not  really  touch  the  (juestion  of  (ni- 
thorUij  at  all.  A  simple  perusal  of  the  address  will  confirm  this  remark. 
But  worse  still,  nearly  everything  said  in  the  section  on  the  "sources 
of  authority"  relates  to  the  way  in  which  God  makes  himself  known, 
and  not  to  the  (question  of  authority  in  the  proper  sense.     He  speaks 


278  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

again  and  again  of  men  "finding  God,"  "devout  seekers  after  God,'' 
"  avenues  to  God,"  etc.,  when  the  tojDic  under  discussion  is  that  of 
authority  in  religion,  not  that  of  the  way  or  avenue  to  God.  The  church 
and  reason  have  then-  office  in  making  God  known  to  men,  and  of 
leading  men  to  God,  but  they  can  only  rightly  discharge  this  office 
when  they  set  forth  the  contents  of  Scripture,  which  is  the  seat  of  au- 
thority in  matters  of  religious  faith  and  life.  The  testimony  of  the 
church  and  the  resources  of  reason  have  value  in  presenting  the  grounds 
or  evidences  that  the  Scriptures  are  of  God  and  from  God ;  but  when 
this  has  been  done,  the  voice  of  God  speaking  in  these  Scriptures  is  the 
only  source  of  authority  which  is  binding  upon  men.  Any  authority 
which  the  church  or  reason  may  have  is  derivative  and  subordinate. 
If  the  question  be  asked  what  is  the  source  of  the  authority  of  the 
Scripture  itself?  we  may  very  properly  quote  from  the  Confession 
what  Dr.  Briggs  quotes  in  connection  with  the  question  of  authenticity 
where  the  enquiry  is  as  to  what  books  constitute  Holy  Scripture.  This 
is  a  claim  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  made  in  several  of  his  writings,  and  it 
is  worth  while  pointing  out  that  it  is  the  former  of  these  questions  to 
which  the  statement  in  the  Confession  relates,  while  Dr.  Briggs  quotes 
it  in  support  of  his  views  on  the  latter.  Let  the  quotation  speak  for 
itself.  "  The  authority  of  the  Hol}^  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be 
believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or 
church,  but  Avholly  upon  God,  (who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof; 
and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 
{Co77f.  Chap.  I,  Sec.  IV.). 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  views  set  forth  in  the  syllabus  are  impracti- 
cable, and  in^  the  end  must  leave  men  without  any  assured  authorita. 
tive  rule.  If  in  actual  application  the  church,  the  reason  and  the 
Bible  are  in  conflict  upon  any  point,  which  must  yield,  and  where  is  the 
arbiter  among  the  disputants?  If  each  is  admitted  to  be  authorita- 
tive, on  what  ground  can  any  one  of  the  three  be  compelled  to  submit 
to  another?  From  this  dilemma  there  is  no  escape.  But  again,  even 
reason  and  the  church  are  fallible  and  may  err  in  their  deliverances, 
and  in  this  case  they  at  least  are  not  always  unfailing  and  reliable 
guides.  On  what  groimd  can  they  rightly  claim  to  be  trustworthy 
sources  of  authority?  But  worse  than  all,  so  far  as  Dr.  Briggs'  views 
are  concerned,  an  unconscious  but  merciless  consistency  finds  the  Scrip- 
tures in  the  same  condition,  for  he  tells  us  that  "  there  are  errors  in 
the  Bible  which  cannot  be  explained  away."  With  a  fallible  church,  an 
imperfect  reason,  and  a  Bible  with  remediless  errors   in   it,  we  are 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.  A.  BRIGG8.  279 

assuredly  in  a  sad  plight,  so  far  as  the  source  of  authority  in  religion 
is  concerned. 

But  we  must  jDass  on  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  views  contained 
in  the  syllabus  regarding  some  of  the  "  Bamers  to  the  Bihle.'  He 
names  six  of  these,  as  follows:  1.  Superstition.  2.  Verbal  Inspiration- 
3.  Authenticity.  4.  Inerrancy.  5.  Violation  of  the  Laws  of  Natui-e' 
6.  Minute  Prediction.  After  reading  what  the  syllabus  sets  forth  con" 
cemiug  these  so-called  "Imrriers,"  our  conviction  is  that,  should  Dr. 
Briggs  succeed  in  removing  these  imaginary  bai'riers  from  the  Bible, 
the  effect  will  l)e  not  to  let  the  earnest  seekers  after  God  find  him 
more  easily  or  speedily,  but  to  allow  the  enemies  of  our  faith  to  pour 
in  over  the  broken  down  barriers,  and  turn  fruitful  fields  into  a  wilder- 
ness. 

What  we  have  to  say  will  be  confined  to  one  of  these  "barriers," 
and  that  is  the  important  one  of  "Verbal  Inspii'ation,'  and  along  with 
it,  of  course,  that  of  "  Inerrancy." 

The  syllabus  takes  strong  ground  against  verbal  inspiration,  but 
not  any  stronger  than  may  be  found  in  some  of  Dr.  Briggs'  other  writ- 
ings. He  does  not  tell  us  what  particular  phase  of  the  verbal  inen-ant 
inspii'ation  is  before  his  mind  ;  but  whatever  it  is,  it  is  rejected  without 
any  ceremony.  It  is  evident  that  he  intends  to  go  fuiiher  than  to  re- 
ject the  purelj'  mechanical  dictation  theory  of  verbal  inspiration,  for  if 
he  only  did  this,  few,  perhaps,  would  find  fault  with  him.  That  he 
intends  to  set  aside  every  phase  of  the  verbal  theory  is  made  very 
plain  from  his  one-sided  and  ineffective  criticism  of  the  Princeton 
divines  in  Whither,  and  the  repetition  of  similar  views  in  the  syllabus 
before  us. 

The  following  passages  from  the  sj'Uabus  and  other  reports  of  the 
address  show  clearly  that  he  rejects  every  form  of  the  verbal  theorj*. 
He  says,  "There  is  nothing  divine  in  the  text,  in  its  letters,  words  or 
clauses.  The  divine  authority  is  not  in  the  style  or  in  the  words,  but 
in  the  concept,  and  so  the  tlivine  power  of  the  Bible  may  be  transferred 
into  any  language."  A  more  extended  report  of  the  address  in  a 
measure  interprets  this  statement  in  the  syllabus  by  adding,  that  "Wo 
force  our  way  through  the  language  and  the  letters,  the  grammar  and 
the  style,  to  the  inner  substance  of  the  thought,  for  there,  if  at  all,  we 
shall  find  God."  Upon  these  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  thus  expressed  we 
oflfer  a  few  critical  remarks,  with  no  atteiajit  to  expand  them. 

In  the  first  place,  we  might  ask  how  it  is  jx)ssible  to  transfer  the  di- 
vine power  into  any  language,  if  that  authority  has  not  in  the  first  in- 


"280  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

stance  belonged  to  the  language?  If  the  divine  autliority  is  not  in  the 
text,  the  words  or  the  style,  how  can  Dr.  Briggs  consistently  speak  of 
transferring  the  divine  power  into  any  language "?  The  denial,  in  this 
way,  of  the  ins^Diration  verbally  of  the  original  text,  renders  it  impos- 
sible to  introduce  divine  authoritj'  into  any  subsequent  set  of  words 
employed  to  set  forth  the  concept  or  thought.  But  we  merel}'  note 
this  in  passing. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  clearly  what  Dr. 
Briggs  means  by  the  "concept"  in  which  the  divine  authority  resides, 
and  whether  he  means  the  same  thing  by  divine  authority  as  is  usually 
denoted  by  inspiration.  The  second  passage  quoted  above  indirectly 
defines  the  "concept"  to  be  "the  inner  substance  of  the  thought." 
Speaking  in  plain  terms,  we  may  suppose  that  Dr.  Briggs  simply  means 
that  the  thoughts,  not  the  words,  are  inspired.  But  even  here  we  cannot 
help  asking  again :  Whose  concept  or  thought  is  meant  ?  Is  it  God's 
or  man's  ?  If  it  be  God's,  how  can  we  be  sure  that  we  have  that  con- 
cept correctly  before  us,  unless  the  words  used  to  convey  it  be  also 
divine  ?  If  it  be  merely  man's  concept,  gathered  from  language  devoid 
of  divine  authority,  then  it  can  have  no  authority  at  all.  It  is  likely 
the  former  that  Dr.  Briggs  means,  and  if  so  he  must  show  how  it 
comes  to  pass  that  we  can  be  sure  of  grasping  that  concept  in  which 
alone  the  divine  element  is  to  be  found. 

In  the  third  place,  Dr.  Briggs  must  refute  a  very  influential  school 
of  philologists  who  hold  that  the  connection  between  thought  and 
language  is  not  arbitrary,  but  definite.  Miiller  inay  be  taken  as  a 
leading  representati^'e  of  this  theory.  In  a  treatise  published  a  few 
years  ago  he  argued  strongly  for  this  opinion,  and  in  another  issued 
only  last  j'ear  on  "  Natual  Religion,"  he  further  fortifies  his  position. 
In  Lecture  XIV.  he  says  that  "we  think  in  words,'  and  that  "a  con- 
cept cannot  exist  without  a  woi'd."  We  do  not  assert  that  Miiller  is 
right,  but  we  say  that  Dr.  Briggs  must  refute  the  learned  philologist 
before  his  way  is  clear  for  a  complete  rejection  of  verbal  inspiration. 
If  the  concept  carries  the  word  with  it,  then  the  inspiration  of  the  con- 
cept also  involves  the  inspiration  of  the  word.  So,  too,  when  we  have 
the  word  we  can  be  so  much  more  siu-e  of  the  concept  when  both  are 
bound  together;  and  if  there  be  a  divine  element  in  the  word,  any 
translation  which  truly  reproduces  the  word  carries  the  concept  with 
it,  and  gives  at  least  a  secondary  divine  authority  to  a  reliable  trans- 
lation. All  of  this  Dr.  Briggs  must  clear  away,  else  his  theory  is 
wrecked. 


THE  IxVAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.  A.  BRIGOS:  281 

In  the  fourth  place,  Dr.  Briggs  is  not  only  m  contiict  with  the  con- 
census of  leading-  Presbyterian  theologians,  but  he  has  broken  with 
the  traditions  of  even  Union  Seminaiy  on  this  question.  Dr.  Briggs 
is  well  aware  that  all  the  leading  theologians  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  both  North  and  South,  hold  in  its  general  outlines  the  theory 
of  verbal  inspiration ;  and  all  the  great  treatises  from  their  pens  set 
forth  this  opinion.  But  Dr.  Briggs  thinks  that  these  theologians, 
especially  the  "Princeton  divines  '  and  the  "Southern  scholastics," 
have  been  erecting  bamers  about  the  Bible,  and  that  his  mission  in 
the  chair  of  Biblical  Theology  is  to  break  these  barriers  down,  so  that 
men  may  easily  tind  a  God,  now  half-hidden  from  view  by  verbal  in- 
spiration and  other'  obstacles.  It  is  of  more  significance  to  note  that 
Dr.  Briggs  has  broken  with  the  traditions  of  Union  Seminary  by  his 
views  on  inspiration.  The  devout  and  philosophic  H.  B.  Suiith  will 
be  taken  by  most  of  the  friends  of  Union  Seminary  to  be  a  noble  rep- 
resentative man.  Of  him  the  late  Dr.  Hitchcock,  of  the  same  seminary, 
once  said,  that  "  he  was  alike  conservative  and  progressive  in  his  theol- 
ogy." Let  las  hear*  Avhat  he  has  to  say  in  his  Introduction  to  Christian 
Tlieolof/y:  "Inspiration  is  the  divine  influence  upon  the  word  and 
idterance  of  man,  through  which  the  revelation  from  God  is  presented " 
to  men."  And  again:  "Inspiration  is  that  divine  influence  by  virtue 
of  which  the  truths  and  facts  given  by  revelation,  as  well  as  other 
truths  and  facts  pertaining  to  God's  kingdom,  are  spoken  or  loritten 
in  a  truthful  and  aiitlioritative  manner."  (P.  204.)  In  regard  to  verbal 
inspiration,  he  adds:  "Inspiration  gives  us  a  book  properly  called  the 
Word  of  God,  inspired  in  all  its  jmrts.  The  inspiration  is  plenary'  in 
the  sense  of  extending  to  all  the  parts,  a7id  of  r.i-tendin;/  <dso  to  (he 
words."  (P.  209.)  With  the  views  of  Dr.  Shedd,  till  last  year  Pro- 
fessor of  Dogmatic  Theology  in  Union  Seminaiy,  most  of  our  readers 
are  familiar.  He  adopts  the  verbal  theory  in  such  terms  as  these: 
"The  suggestion  of  ideas  inevitably  involves  the  suggestion  of  words." 
"Verbal  inspiration  is  the  truth,  if  thought  is  prior  to  and  suggests 
language."  {/Jof/matic  Theolorpj,  pp.  89,  90.)  He  then  argues  at 
length  to  show  that  words  are  not  arbitrary  signs  of  ideas,  and  so  con- 
firms his  views  of  verbal  inspiration,  and  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture. 
It  is  painfully  manifest  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  brcjken  with  the  trailitions 
of  his  own  seminary,  and  it  is  to  be  feai'ed  that  the  friends  of  the  in- 
8tituti(m  are,  in  gi'eut  luunbers,  drifting  from  their  old  moorings,  and 
"we  can  only  ask  Whither/ 

But  the  Umits  of  this  note  are  more  than  exceeded,  so  that  we  must 


282  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

forbear  saying  some  things  we  had  intended  concerning  the  contents 
of  the  Bibhcal  Theology  indicated  in  the  syllabus.  We  had  intended 
to  show  that  it  is  defective,  not  so  much  by  what  it  says,  as  by  what  it 
leaves  unsaid,  but  it  is  enough  to  remark  that  unless  he  gives  more 
prominence  to  the  objective  redemptive  facts  which  the  Scriptures  re- 
cord, especially  in  regard  to  vicarious  sacrifice  in  his  teaching  than  is 
indicated  in  the  syllabus,  his  system  will  be  very  incomplete.  Bibli- 
cal Theology  has  a  place  and  important  work,  but  it  must  be  biblical 
in  the  strict  sense,  and  not  merely  rational  and  ethical. 

The  views  contained  in  the  syllabus  concerning  "miracles"  and 
"prophec}'"  may  be  understood  when  it  is  merely  stated  that  the  or- 
dinary doctrines  regarding  them  are  considered  "Barriers  to  the  Bi- 
ble" by  Dr.  Briggs.  To  speak  of  "mercj'  as  the  favorite  divine  at- 
tribute" is  surely  to  forget  that  infinite  perfection  pertains  alike  to  all 
the  attributes  of  Deity.  He  asserts  that  progressive  sanctification 
after  death  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  but  he  utterly  fails  to  explain 
whether  this  shall  consist  in  the  removal  of  some  remains  of  sin,  or 
simply  in  growth  in  divine  Hfe.  If  the  latter,  few  will  deny  it ;  but  if 
the  former,  he  is  hard  by  the  door  of  purgatory.  Election  is  merely 
"the  election  of  men  to  salvation  by  the  touch  of  divine  love."  What 
he  means  by  this  sentence  is  more  than  we  can  understand :  "  The  Bi- 
ble does  not  teach  universal  salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation 
of  the  world,  of  the  race  of  man ;  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by 
the  selection  of  a  limited  number  from  the  mass."  And  how  all  this 
can  be  harmonized  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Chiu'ch  is  a  question  which  Dr.  Briggs  must  answer. 

Attention  has  been  called  by  several  journals  to  the  fact  that  the 
General  Assembly  must  pass  upon  the  election  and  installation  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  and  that  the  Board  of  Union  Seminary  has  forestalled  the  As- 
sembly by  settling  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  chair.  The  Independent  and  the 
Presbyterian  both  allude  to  this  fact.  From  "Moore's  Digest''  (p. 
390),  and  from  Minutes  of  Assembly  for  1870  (p.  148),  it  is  clear  that 
the  Assembly  has  veto  power  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs.'  This  at  once 
raises  and  forces  on  the  Assembly  a  distinct  issue.  If  the  Assembly 
next  May  in  Detroit  should  pronounce  its  veto,  what  will  Union  Semi- 

'  Since  this  was  ■written  it  has  been  claimed  in  certain  quarters  that  the  Assem- 
bly cannot  exercise  its  veto  power  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  since  he  is  merelj' 
transferred  from  one  chair  to  another,  not  elected  for  the  first  time.  Should 
Union  Seminary  not  re^jort  the  election  to  the  Assembly  for  action,  it  remains  to 
be  seen  what  the  Assembly  will  do  in  the  premises. 


INAUGURATION  OF  DR.  C.  A.  BRIGGS.  283 

naiy  do?  But  if  the  Assembly  takes  no  notice  of  the  matter,  then  it 
will  be  admitted  that  a  mau  may  hold  the  ^'iews  of  Dr.  Bri^j^gs,  and 
teach  them  in  a  hi-^h  position  and  yet  be  in  good  standing  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  Oui'  brethren  at  the  North  cannot  avoid  the  issue 
thus  raised,  which  in  its  practical  results  may  be  far  more  important 
than  the  report  of  the  Revision  Committee. 

We  conclude  this  already  too  long  note  with  a  quotation  from  The 
Independent,  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  extreme  or  harsh  critic : 
""What  we  have  said  has  been  said  in  sorrow,  and  with  much  regi-et, 
and  from  a  simple  sense  of  duty.  We  do  not  think  the  address  fitted 
to  the  theme  or  the  occasion,  or  adapted  to  do  good  service  in  the  in- 
terests of  Biblical  Theologj',  and  have  felt  constrained  to  put  on  record 
our  objections  thereto.  That  sort  of  higher  criticism  which  accepts 
as  true  what  it  finds  in  the  Bible,  not  because  it  finds  it  there,  but  be- 
cause it  is  true,  and  hence  rejects  what  in  its  judgment  is  not  true, 
even  if  there  found,  logically  undermines  the  very  foundations  of  a 
supernatural  revelation  from  God,  such  as  the  Bible  purports  to  be, 
and  as  we  believe  it  to  be.  We  beheve  the  Bible  to  be  '  the  word  of  God ' 
in  the  sense  of  a  supernatural  inspiration,  and  hence  believe  that  when 
the  meaning  of  its  language  is  ascertained,  the  absolute  law  of  faith  is 
supplied  touching  all  matters  therein  embraced.  If  this  be  'Bibliola- 
try,'  then  so  be  it.  It  is  just  the  kind  of  ' Bibliolatry '  which  Christ 
and  his  disciples  clearly  had  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures." Francis  E.  Beattie. 
Columbia,  S.  C. 


VIII.  CRITICISMS  AND  REVIEWS. 


Gladstone's  "Impkegxable  Eock  of  Holy  Sckiptuke.  " 

The  Impkegnable  Kock  or  Holy  Sct.iptuke.     By  the  Rt.  Hon.   W.  E.  Gladstone,. 

M.  P.    Eevised  and  enlarged  from  Tlie  Sunday-School  Times.      12mo;  pp.  358. 

Philadelphia:  John  D.  Wattles.     1891. 

This  work  is  Mr.  Gladstone's  latest  contribution  to  the  Christian  literature  of 
our  day.  Its  author  has  passed  the  ordinary  limit  of  active  life,  "fourscore 
years,"  yet  the  work  before  us  shows  no  marks  of  failing  intellectual  vigor;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  will  add  to  the  reputation  of  the  great  English  statesman  and 
scholar  with  all  thoughtful  men. 

Twentj'-five  years  ago  M.  Guizot,  the  great  French  statesman  and  historian, 
published  his  Meditations  on  Christianity,  a  work  of  the  same  general  character  as 
this  of  Mr.  Gladstone.  At  that  time  M.  Guizot  was  seventy-nine  years  old ;  ver^' 
nearly  the  age  of  Mr.  Gladstone.  In  this  work  M.  Guizot  writes :  ' '  For  myself, 
arrived  at  the  term  of  a  long  life,  one  of  labor,  of  reflection,  and  of  trials — of 
trials  in  thought  as  well  as  in  action — I  am  convinced  that  the  Christian  dogmas 
are  the  legitimate  and  satisfactory  solutions  of  those  religious  problems  which,  as  I 
have  said,  nature  suggests  and  man  carries  in  his  own  breast,  and  from  which  he 
cannot  escape. "  The  dogmas  of  ' '  Creation,  Providence,  Original  Sin,  the  Incarna- 
tion and  Redemption,"  he  adds,  "constitute  the  essence  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  all  who  believe  in  them  I  hold  to  be  Christians. "     Of  these  he  writes : 

' '  One  leading  and  common  characteristic  in  these  dogmas  strikes  me  at  the 
outset;  they  deal  frankly  with  the  religioiis  jjroblems  natural  to  and  inherent  in 
man,  and  olfer  at  once  the  solution.  The  dogma  of  Creation  attests  the  existence 
of  God,  as  creator  and  legislator,  and  it  attests  also  the  link  which  unites  man  to 
God.  The  dogma  of  Providence  explains  and  justifies  prayer,  that  instinctive  re- 
course of  man  to  the  living  God,  to  that  supreme  power  which  is  ever  present  with 
him  in  life,  and  which  influences  his  destiny.  The  dogma  of  Original  Sin  accounts 
for  the  presence  of  evil  and  disorder  in  mankind  and  in  the  world.  The  dogmas 
of  the  Incarnation  and  Kedemption  rescue  man  from  the  consequences  of  evil,  and 
open  to  him  a  j^rospect  in  another  life  of  the  recstablishment  of  order.  Unques- 
tionably the  system  is  grand,  complete,  well-connected,  and  forcible ;  it  answers  to 
the  requirements  of  the  human  soul,  removes  the  burden  which  oppresses  it,  im- 
parts the  strength  which  it  ne?ds,  and  the  satisfaction  to  which  it  aspires.  Has  it 
a  rightful  claim  to  all  this  power  ?  Is  its  influence  legitimate,  as  well  as  eflica- 
cious?"     (Pp.  40,  41.) 

Mr.  Gladstone,  in  speaking  of  the  title  chosen  for  his  book,  —  "  The  Imprerjna- 
ble  Rock  of  Holy  Scripture, " — writes : 

"The  words  soimd  like  a  challenge,  And  they  are  a  challenge  to  some  extentr 
but  not  in  the  sense  that  might  be  sujiposed.  They  are  a  challenge  to  accept  the 
Scriptures  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  and  historic  grounds  of  their  charsicter  in 
themselves,  and  of  the  work  which  they,  and  the  agencies  associated  with  them. 


Date  Due 

■ '  u  U-  >  ^ 

ij  l^  *■ 

.v^ 

'_<  r 

:  .^-    ..:;J 

■-wutix 

f 

^- 


m^'M 


mmmmmm 


